FROM the EDITORS:

IMPORTANT INFORMATION:Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.

Monday, October 26, 2009

When Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected pope in April 2005, all the
world rejoiced -- or recoiled -- with the certain knowledge that the
cardinals had settled on the one man who would be more conservative
than John Paul II.

<snip>

Thus far, Benedict's papacy has been one of constant movement and
change, the sort of dynamic that liberal Catholics -- or Protestants --
are usually criticized for pursuing. In Benedict's case, this
liberalism serves a conservative agenda. But his activism should not be
surprising: As a sharp critic of the reforms of Vatican II, Ratzinger
has long pushed for what he calls a "reform of the reform" to correct
what he considers the excesses or abuses of the time.

Of course a "reformed reform" doesn't equal a return to the past,
even if that were the goal. Indeed, Benedict's reforms are rapidly
creating something entirely new in Catholicism. For example, when the
pope restored the old Latin Mass, he also restored the use of the old
Good Friday prayer, which spoke of the "blindness" of the Jews and
called for their conversion. That prayer was often a spur to
anti-Jewish pogroms in the past, so its revival appalled Jewish
leaders. After months of protests, the pope agreed to modify the
language of the prayer; that change and other modifications made the
"traditional" Mass more a hybrid than a restoration.

Now, I'm not a liturgical historian or scholar, but it strikes me as being more than a little over-the-top to say that reforming and restoring the liturgy is somehow evidence of a reform "creating something entirely new in Catholicism." The history of the Roman liturgy—as Denis Crouan's book, The History and the Future of the Roman Liturgy(Ignatius Press, 2005), documents—is one of change, reform, and modification. For example, Crouan writes of the Roman liturgies in the Middle Ages: "Will this Roman liturgy remain stable over the course of the medieval period? Absolutely not. Quite to the contrary, it will be modified in a relatively simple process: its basic structure remains, but elements are added to it that are derived essentially from prayers taken from private devotions" (p. 58). He later notes that the restoration of the Roman liturgy during the sixteenth century "took place in fits and starts, with fortunate and unfortunate results..." (p. 70). And so forth and so on. Even setting aside the issue of a specific prayer, the notion of a "reform of the reform" hardly seems strange or unique when glancing over the history of the liturgy in the West.

But here is where Gibson really goes way up and over the top:

More important, with the latest accommodation to Anglicans, Benedict
has signaled that the standards for what it means to be Catholic --
such as the belief in the real presence of Christ in the Mass as
celebrated by a validly ordained priest -- are changing or, some might
argue, falling. The Vatican is in effect saying that disagreements over
gay priests and female bishops are the main issues dividing Catholics
and Anglicans, rather than, say, the sacraments and the papacy and
infallible dogmas on the Virgin Mary, to name just a few past points of
contention.

That is a remarkable, even outlandish, claim. It is all the more so considering Gibson provides no argument or evidence for it. In addition, he apparently ignores or misses this fact: "Today’s announcement of the Apostolic Constitution is a response by Pope Benedict XVI to a number of requests over the past few years to the Holy See from groups of Anglicans who wish to enter into full visible communion with the Roman Catholic Church, and are willing to declare that they share a common Catholic faith and accept the Petrine ministry as willed by Christ for his Church." That is from the the joint statement issued by Dr. Rowan Williams and Archbishop Vincent Nichols. It seems clear that this is an "all or nothing" offer from Rome; it's not a matter of saying, "I'm against homosexuality and the Immaculate Conception," and getting accepted because the former trumps the latter. Of course not. Gibson's remark, frankly, is ridiculous. The bottom line with any of these issues—whether it be the Eucharist, the priesthood, homosexuality, or the Immaculate Conception—is the magisterial authority of the Church, granted by Christ to Peter and the apostles, and to their successors.

That is revolutionary -- and unexpected from a pope like Benedict.
It could encourage the view, which he and other conservatives say they
reject, that all Christians are pretty much the same when it comes to
beliefs, and the differences are just arguments over details.

Wha....? Well, if it does "encourage" such a view, it would have to be among people who don't know a donut from a bonfire.

I think the central problem with Gibson's analysis, as it often is with his writing (something even Fr. Andrew Greeley noted in his Commonweal review of Gibson's book on Pope Benedict XVI), is that it is rooted in a heavily politicized view of the Church and the actions of nearly everyone in the Church. It is all about the "conservatives/sectarians" versus the "liberals/big-church Catholics," with the former being angry ideologues and political hacks, while the latter are fighting for social justice, tolerance, and understanding. The limits of this approach should be apparent. Actually, they are apparent. At least to this sectarian, conservative, former-Protestant, and proud Papist.

Comments

David Gibson is just like Margaret Mead. He sees everything through is on prejudices and projects what he wants to see on whatever he covers. No surprise from your typical women priest supporting dissident who wrote the worst book on Pope Benedict.

What else can one expect from David Gibson? He spoke at our Faith Formation Convention in San Jose and it couldn't have been more apparent that he didn't really know what he was talking about. He entered the room cracking nasty jokes about how he wasn't Mel Gibson, but most importantly, the perspective he offered in his talk was Catholic Church as political game. He just didn't get it. In fact, he managed to be so offensive, my friend and I got up and walked out of the room after 15 minutes.

Gibson is a convert. His book on Benedict XVI is actuallu very good in many parts, and nicely nails the accents of Ratzinger's conservative theology. He does indeed know of what he writes and speaks, even if he is wrong. What is needed is a good, conservative explanation of why people like Gibson and Luke Timothy Johnson and others reject Benedictine claims. Until such objections, like those of Bart Ehrman, are met head on, all the protests sound more like FOX news than real orthodoxy. Not arguing, just saying... Conservatives think people understand the basic moorings, while they were washed away 20 plus years ago!

Joe: I've not read Gibson's book, but his columns are underwhelming, at best. Put more specifically, he doesn't seem to be very theologically literate. Not sure what you mean about "Benedictine claims" or protests that sound like "FOX News." Regardless, here is a review of Johnson's book, The Creed, that I wrote a few years ago. There are, of course, many good books about the theology of Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, including several from Ignatius Press.

I agree with you on the inadequacy of Gibson's assessment of the upcoming apostolic constitution. In addition to the problem that you note, he quotes ACNA bishops, which strikes me as rather misleading- he should be talking to TAC bishops if he wants to get a sense of the perspective of Anglicans who will actually be utilizing these new structures that have been announced.

On the whole "reform of the reform" thing, though, I don't see why it's a big deal. You and he seem to be saying more or less the same thing, and it strikes me as a good thing that Gibson is trying to say, "Benedict isn't a reactionary! He's actually a liberal!" The point, I think, is to argue exactly the sort of innovative development that you claim for the liturgy. Perhaps he would differ from you in how much this revision and reform was present before Benedict XVI, but with regard to the current pope, it seems to me that he's not trying to say anything much different than you are.

First of all, my thanks and appreciation for the spectrum of ideas that you provide your readers on Ignatius Insight - and the very useful author excerpts from Ignatius books.

I rejoiced that you responded to David Gibson's now habitual inanities written in the guise of a religion 'expert'. Before I saw your 'fisk' today, I had done my own extensive fisk in the English section of the Benedetto XVI Forum, together with a fisk of Ross Douthat's op-ed in the New York Times on the same topic.
http://benedettoxviforum.freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discussione.aspx?idd=8527207&p=38&#idm98381722
My main problem with both of them is that they seem not to check out some of the rather basic facts on which they make assumptions and formulate conclusions.